11:119 reason for God creating us
-
Perhaps my transliteration was unclear...ra-ha-meem....and yes...we are speaking of the same root.
This is absolutely untrue.
Arabic evolved from Aramaic/Hebrew. And, Hebrew, Aramaic and Arabic are all dialects of the Semitic Language.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic#History
Modern Arabic is considered to be part of the Arabo-Canaanite sub-branch of the central group of West Semitic languages. While Arabic is not the oldest of the Semitic languages, it shares many features with the common ancestor for all Semitic languages in the Afro-Asiatic group of languages, Proto-Semitic whose phonological, morphological, and syntactic features have been determined by linguists. Many linguists consider Arabic to be the most conservative of the modern Semitic languages because of how completely it preserves the features of Proto-Semitic.
The earliest texts in Proto-Arabic, or Ancient North Arabian, are the Hasaean inscriptions of eastern Saudi Arabia, from the 8th century BC, written not in the modern Arabic alphabet, nor in its Nabataean ancestor, but in variants of the epigraphic South Arabian musnad. These are followed by 6th-century BC Lihyanite texts from southeastern Saudi Arabia and the Thamudic texts found throughout Arabia and the Sinai, and not actually connected with Thamud. Later come the Safaitic inscriptions beginning in the 1st century BC, and the many Arabic personal names attested in Nabataean inscriptions (which are, however, written in Aramaic). From about the 2nd century BC, a few inscriptions from Qaryat al-Faw (near Sulayyil) reveal a dialect which is no longer considered "Proto-Arabic", but Pre-Classical Arabic.
Another Wikipedia entry http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabic_alphabet#History
The Arabic alphabet can be traced back to the Nabatean alphabet used to write the Nabataean dialect of Aramaic. The first known text in the Arabic alphabet is a late fourth-century inscription from Jabal Ramm (50 km east of Aqaba), but the first dated one is a trilingual inscription at Zebed in Syria from 512. However, the epigraphic record is extremely sparse, with only five certainly pre-Islamic Arabic inscriptions surviving, though some others may be pre-Islamic. Later, dots were added above and below the letters to differentiate them (the Aramaic model had fewer phonemes than the Arabic, and some originally distinct Aramaic letters had become indistinguishable in shape, so in the early writings 15 distinct letter-shapes had to do duty for 28 sounds!) The first surviving document that definitely uses these dots is also the first surviving Arabic papyrus (PERF 55, dated April 643, although they did not become obligatory until much later. Important texts like the Quran were frequently memorized; this practice, which is still widespread among many Muslim communities today, probably arose partially from a desire to avoid the great ambiguity of the script.
Later still, vowel marks and the hamza were introduced, beginning some time in the latter half of the seventh century, preceedign the first invention of Syriac and Hebrew vocalization. Initially, this was done by a system of red dots, said to have been commissioned by an Umayyad governor of Iraq, Hajjaj ibn Yusuf a dot above = a, a dot below = i, a dot on the line = u, and doubled dots indicated nunation. However, this was cumbersome and easily confusable with the letter-distinguishing dots, so about 100 years later, the modern system was adopted. The system was finalized around 786 by al-Farahidi.
That is a subject of debate for another thread.....
see my above statements...
Salam,
ArnabSalaam,
I know the development of the Arabic language, and still have the 3 languages a gap of enviromental and culture differences which have certain key effects on the language. This is why languages DEVELOP in writings, meanings and defintions. Just as you confessed above.
-
Salam,
I know the development of the Arabic language, and still have the 3 languages a gap of enviromental and culture differences which have certain key effects on the language. This is why languages DEVELOP in writings, meanings and defintions. Just as you confessed above.
There are not differences in the three dialects of the Semitic languages in terms of their scriptural usage. This is plainly evident.
The only gaps are the one's created by MODERN interpretations of Arabic. And the everyday usage. This does not apply to scripture/God's laws and writings.Which is why we differentiate between Modern and Classical Arabic.
Salam,
Arnab -
Salaam,
Your statement was IN ENGLISH "The concept of mercy is un-quranic." You did not say "The concept of mercy AS SEEN BY CHRISTIANS is un-quranic. You made an ABSOLUTE statement using the English language with out any qualifying remarks.
Well, if you have paid attention you would have read it was Parwez's statement, but I agree with him. And he refers to the common religious understanding of sin.
As for the definition of rahm. I have posted referrences and evidence that indicates its definition.
I rather stick to the clear Arabic definition, although it is interested to see how the word has developed differently in details.
Yes, that is one of the definitions of the root. But it cannot be limited to that definition.
The key 1st meaning of the word is a womb. Thus the "mercy" must be understood in how a womb is "merciful" to a foetus. This is how Arabic roots work.
First of all you are taking just ONE of the examples of definitions of mercy out of the many definitions that are available in English. This is not an adequate evaluation of the word.
As said, it was ONE example. Mercy in english was an elite word, where a lord was merciful to its subjects by showing his power to punish or not to punish if it pleased him. God is not like this. And this definition is what people have mostly in mind when they read the word "mercy". And thus this is what I addressed.
Second, Yes, I am familiar with the above verses....however, are you forgetting that one has a lifetime of God's mercy where we can repent and amend our ways and are forgiven if we walk the straight path?
Yes, this is called Tauba, to return. The above verses refer to the Afterlife where no deed will be neglected, thus no "mercy". And we are not "forgiven", returning to the right path means to compensate for the wrong deeds (sayyi) you have done by doing good to society (hassanat), see 11114. And this falls under God's Afwa, to give room to His creation by always allowing a person to redress his behaviour during his lifetime. Because God has created us to develop further (11119), so it is not His "mercy", but His will to develop us further.
I do see clear differences in defintions and idioms here.
With all due respect, you may want to consider ALL the verses and ALL the definitions and not try to limit them.
The author is comparing punishment with harming God which is not a logical comparison. Just because one believes that he will be punished for his transgressions does not mean that he thinks that in transgressing he has harmed God. This is completely untrue.I am the author, and this is not what is said. People view sins as offending God, making Him angry with you. They are more concerned with how God "feels" and by thus not understanding that their deeds determine their evolution. They view still as a tyrant king that can be "merciful" to you if it pleases Him just a human king would act. This is the main view the majority of religions have on God. This cannot be denied.
Are you saying that if person A murders person B that it does not affect the WHOLE environment that these people live in?
IF person A murders person B....it causes a whole group of person B's family and friends to be saddened which may result in
loosing time off work (affecting the bosses, workplace and by extention the community),
may cause extremes in emotion ie depression or anger or the like which can last for months or years....especially in close relatives (ie spouse, children, parents) which at the very least affects their performance in school or work activities
may cause the community to feel unsafe in their homes or workplace thereby shaping their concept of the world they live in
Also affects the life of person A and person A's family in that they may experience shock, shame, or distrust.
The affects can go beyond imagination on this scenerio.
I would NOT say that the the deeds of a person affecting their environment/universe are merely Mythological.Dear Arnab, please do not act ignorant of that fact that the majority of religious people on earth view the consequences of their deeds in a mythological way and not in the direct logical way as you have stated above. Your example above is also how I view it IF you have really read my article you would have know this.
Are you saying that one who has sinned cannot repent and correct his ways and walk in the path of Allah?
Are you saying that you are WITHOUT any transgression whatsoever?
Are you calling the hereafter mythological?
When one dies....yes. But when one is ALIVE we are granted the chance to amend our ways and we are granted forgiveness if we walk away from these transgressions.Oh my God! Do you really only read 2 words or something? The above article clearly states we must COMPENSATE our wrong deeds by doing good. This thus clearly state that as long as we live we can create a good result in the Hereafter. Please read things like 4 times before responding...
It would seem that the problem is that you or the author is using Christianity as a dictionary....What I mean by this is you seem to be using the Christian concept of words such as mercy and sin to define their meaning. This is not helpful. Their are clear cut ENGLISH definitions for the words you are using. I would suggest clarifying statements...
People ARE using the Christian defintions when reading these words in English, please do not make a fool of yourself by stating otherwise. Also the english definitions still differ completely from the Arabic definitions.
Instead of saying...
"The concept of sin is not present in the Quran."
Clarify it as such...
"The Christian concept of sin is not present in the Quran."The concept of religious sin is not present in the Qur'an. As even the English definitions refers to the religious understanding of it. The Qur'an addresses that you harm your evolution be doing bad to others, this is a more scientifical view on cause and effect your personality then the religious words as sin which can give a very deceptive misunderstanding of the meanings. It is good you try to seperate the English definitions from the Christian ones, but the majority do not do this, plus I believe the English definitions do not really define the Arabci definitions.
-
Salam,
There are not differences in the three dialects of the Semitic languages in terms of their scriptural usage. This is plainly evident.
The only gaps are the one's created by MODERN interpretations of Arabic. And the everyday usage. This does not apply to scripture/God's laws and writings.Which is why we differentiate between Modern and Classical Arabic.
Salam,
I disagree as I see clear differences in development of the details of the languages. I have given already some key points why. If we disagree then let's do so.
-
I am the author, and this is not what is said. People view sins as offending God, making Him angry with you. They are more concerned with how God "feels" and by thus not understanding that their deeds determine their evolution. They view still as a tyrant king that can be "merciful" to you if it pleases Him just a human king would act. This is the main view the majority of religions have on God. This cannot be denied.
Actually, I have not found this to be a common belief in most religions especially modern ones....Unless one is speaking of Greek Mythology or Ancient Egyptian beliefs or some other ancient belief system.
Oh my God! Do you really only read 2 words or something? The above article clearly states we must COMPENSATE our wrong deeds by doing good. This thus clearly state that as long as we live we can create a good result in the Hereafter. Please read things like 4 times before responding...
Arnold, you have a habit of making ABSOLUTE statements that contradict each other. To your mind, they may compliment each other.
But the fact is you say one thing IS THIS and ONLY THIS
and then in another paragraph you say something is ABSOLUTELY THUS and ONLY THUS...Have you considered the possibility that the error may not be on the part of the reader but may in fact be on the part of the author?
People ARE using the Christian defintions when reading these words in English, please do not make a fool of yourself by stating otherwise.
Relax Arnold. One does not make a fool of one's self by disagreeing especially when the one disagreeing is basing their statements on fact. ;D
This statement you made is a matter of your opinion.
My disagreement is due to the fact that a good number of the English speaking population is
either
A. Not Christian
or
B. Considers themselves Christian but they are not religious and therefore they don't use Christian definitions.
and
C. We have an English Dictionary not a Christian Dictionary
The concept of religious sin is not present in the Qur'an. As even the English definitions refers to the religious understanding of it.
If you are using the English definition of sin, then I would say that the concept of sin is definitely in the Quran.
Salam,
Arnab -
Salam,
I disagree as I see clear differences in development of the details of the languages. I have given already some key points why. If we disagree then let's do so.
Salam,
Fair enough. peace
Salam,
Arnab -
Salam,
When you will understand that Rahima stands for nourishment, protection and further development, then the verses are very clear
Rahima means to provide, nourish and protect a creation to develop it further as a womb does to a foetus.
Rizq comes from Razaqa which means to provide, supply and to bestow. This is thus PART of the Rahima, nourishment, it is only 1 part of Rahima, which is much more then just providing.Then, is forgiving the sin (Gafer) would be part of Rahama?
(٦
Allah forgiveth not (the sin of) to associate with him (lies), but He forgiveth whom He pleaseth other sins than this; one who associate with Allah (lies), hath strayed far, far away (from the Right). (4-116)
-
salaam,
Actually, I have not found this to be a common belief in most religions especially modern ones....Unless one is speaking of Greek Mythology or Ancient Egyptian beliefs or some other ancient belief system.
This is part in almost all religions to some degree, and especially in the mind of the followers.
Arnold, you have a habit of making ABSOLUTE statements that contradict each other. To your mind, they may compliment each other.
But the fact is you say one thing IS THIS and ONLY THIS
and then in another paragraph you say something is ABSOLUTELY THUS and ONLY THUS...Have you considered the possibility that the error may not be on the part of the reader but may in fact be on the part of the author?
Relax Arnold. One does not make a fool of one's self by disagreeing especially when the one disagreeing is basing their statements on fact. ;D
sorry, but any reader would see you are mixing up things. But please give the alleged contradictions in my essay.
My disagreement is due to the fact that a good number of the English speaking population is
either
A. Not Christian
or
B. Considers themselves Christian but they are not religious and therefore they don't use Christian definitions.
and
C. We have an English Dictionary not a Christian Dictionary
If you are using the English definition of sin, then I would say that the concept of sin is definitely in the Quran.
The majority of people will approach the words in religious terms as even if they are non-religious themselves they still approach the Quran as a religious text and so automatically approach the words religiously. It is good you try to seperate them but hardly any people will do that.
This is why I avoid religious terms as
- I believe the Arabic terms are different from them and more precise.
- The majority of people will approach them religiously and thus would misunderstand the Quranic message.
-
In my eyes a clearer rendition would be
Allah will not protect you against the consequences of to associate with Him , but He protects you against the consequences of other harmful things by His Will. ; one who associate with Allah (lies), hath strayed far, far away (from the Right). (4-116)
If you follow other authorities next to Gods Authority as displayed in the Quran, He cannot help you since we must decide with our own free will what to believe. And since other authorities can give false understandings of the workings of the universe, ie Divine laws, we can rather harm ourselves then protect ourselves.
But if we hold on to the Quran, we can be protect ourselves against harm by following it.
-
In my eyes a clearer rendition would be
Allah will not protect you against the consequences of to associate with Him , but He protects you against the consequences of other harmful things by His Will. ; one who associate with Allah (lies), hath strayed far, far away (from the Right). (4-116)
If you follow other authorities next to Gods Authority as displayed in the Quran, He cannot help you since we must decide with our own free will what to believe. And since other authorities can give false understandings of the workings of the universe, ie Divine laws, we can rather harm ourselves then protect ourselves.
But if we hold on to the Quran, we can be protect ourselves against harm by following it.
So, you are saying that the Arabic Word "Ghafer" means "Protact" instead of "Forgive" and "Zanoob" "Harmful Things" instead of "Sins". hypno
I think your understanding is very strange, and I do not know how I can comment. But, after our long debates in this thread and the others, I can say that both of us believe in two different books; and therefore, we do not follow the same religion.
Thus, you have your Deen and I have my Deen, and God will judge between us in the Judgment Day.
Salam -
Salam Arnold,
I want to start out by saying that I have a deep respect for your research and all the work you do to help others understand the Quran and Arabic.
Even though I disagree with you about as often as I agree with you. LOL
My critisism is meant to be constructive. It is not personal. It is because I respect your intelligence that I critique your work. Please keep this in mind as you read.
Here are examples of what I am seeing....
You argue that there is NO affect of a person's deeds on the environment/universe.....
...It is a mythological concept of how their deeds effect their
environment and the universe.You also argue that there IS an affect of a person's deeds on the environment/universe....
...So any deed will only be judged on its beneficence
towards humanity (1317), or how it harms and corrupts your own personality....constant system of cause and effect creates the outcomes of your deeds and the effects of
them on your further evolution in the Universe....When a person has done a deed which has hurt his fellow men, or when a person has
done deeds which corrupts its own character....
You argue that there is NO such thing as salvation....
The main concept man has created is the concept of
salvation.The Qur?an
breaks away this man-made belief by saying not even a deed smaller than an atom will be
neglected (997- and thus completely rejecting the concept of salvation.You also argue that there IS salvation...
The Qur?an gives thus a far more practical concept then salvation, that of compensation.
When one makes a compensation....
(definition of compensation to make an appropriate and usually counterbalancing payment/deed to something/someone...in this case the counterbalance would be to one's own soul)
One achieves salvation....
(definition of salvation deliverance from the power and effects of sin)
The Qur?an presents a more logical and fair system, where mankind know
exactly what to do to redress and how to correct their mistakes.correcting one's mistakes leads to salvation or erasing the mistake....The good takes away the bad.
In the Qur?an, forgiveness stands for giving room to compensate for wrong
deeds done.Again compensation leads to salvation. (not using a Christian definition of salvation)
You state that there is NO mercy...
The concept of mercy is un-quranic.
Then you indicate Yes there is mercy....
The system of compensation have been made in a merciful way, whereby the benefiting
deeds have more weight on the universal scale then the harming ones.If there is no concept of mercy in the Quran...compensation cannot be made in a "merciful" way....
The fact is this....
I understand that what you are saying.
I can look at the overall picture and ignore the statements that negate the general message.
But then your writing would still be misunderstood by some.Here is an observation. I notice you are making "absolute" statements and then going on to disagree with these statements.
Or you make an absolute statement and then neglect to inform the reader of the definition of the word you are using in the absolute statement.An "absolute" statement is a statement that has no qualifier or exception in the statement.....
Let me give you some examples...These examples are paraphrased quotes from you.
So, instead of someone saying....an absolute statement such as....
"There is no concept of mercy in the Quran."
One would say....
"The concept of mercy in the Quran differs from a Christian concept of mercy."
The qualifier is the word "Christian." This takes away any ambiguity. And, when you go into your explanation the reader has a CLEAR concept of the idea you are presenting.
As we have discussed.... your assumption is that the English language is based on Christianity and the words have a Christian definition.
I have not found this to be true.
In fact, I have never been Christian...so to be honest there is a lot about Christianity that I am not familiar with.I'm actually learning some of these Christian beliefs from you.....LOL.
Another example....
If one says....
"The Quran completely rejects the idea of salvation."
This statement indicates the Quran rejects salvation COMPLETELY....meaning there is no trace of the idea of salvation in any of its definitive forms.
This is not true.
So one would say...
"The Christian concept of salvation is rejected in the Quran."
OR
"Salvation as it is understood by many popular belief systems is not present in the Quran."By adding qualifiers you tell the reader exactly what you mean. You basically indicate which definition of the word you are using when you use a qualifier.
Let me give you an example of why this is so important.....
If I say to you...
"There is no God but Allah, but there are many other gods."
and I ask you to agree with my statement....you cannot because in that statement I have said two conflicting things.
- There is no God but Allah. This you can agree to.
I also said...
- There are many other gods.
This you cannot agree to.
But wait...
What if I said...
"There is no God but Allah. But there are many people who think there are other gods."This you can agree to....why?
Because I qualified and identified what I meant by "there are other gods." It is not my belief to which I was referring but it is the belief of some people.
Yet, one more reason why this is important (last one lol)....
You are setting yourself up to be accurately quoted in ways that are not intended by your general message.
For instance someone who wants to debate with you on a subject (or worse an actual enemy to the Quran) can accurately quote you in ways that you did not intend.
Here is an example based on your quotes
Arnold Yasin says "There is no concept of mercy in the Quran. The concept of sin is not present in the Quran. The Quran rejects the concept of salvation."
Suppose someone new to the Quran reads this....or worse someone who is an enemy to PEACE....one can only imagine what their impression would be.
However, I have read enough of your posts and thoughts on the Quran to know that was not your intention or the general message you were trying to convey (or maybe I'm completely wrong and YOU DO mean those things in their absolute statements).
When I point out inconsistencies it is actually an attempt to try to encourage you to write in ways that cannot be misunderstood (or at least when someone quotes you out of context the quote cannot be misconstrued).
Please note I am not saying that you would be responsible for every person who misunderstands your statements or mis-uses information.
That would be ridiculous.
There will always be people who don't understand no matter what literary precautions you take.However if you qualify your statements, you can avoid many honest mis communications.
So in the example above if you had qualified your statements the only quotes someone could take from you would be...
Arnold Yasin says "The Christian concept of mercy is not in the Quran. The concept of sin as defined by Christians is not present in the Quran. The Quran rejects the concept of salvation as understood by Christianity."
And therefore no one would be able to present quotes that you did not intend because the quotes do not negate the message you were trying to convey.
Salam,
Arnab -
So, you are saying that the Arabic Word "Ghafer" means "Protact" instead of "Forgive" and "Zanoob" "Harmful Things" instead of "Sins". hypno
I think your understanding is very strange, and I do not know how I can comment. But, after our long debates in this thread and the others, I can say that both of us believe in two different books; and therefore, we do not follow the same religion.
Thus, you have your Deen and I have my Deen, and God will judge between us in the Judgment Day.
SalamGhafour comes from Mighfar, helmet. Please see the Arabic definitions
Page 405-406 under the root Ghafara. Dictionary of the Holy Quran by Abdul Mannar Omar, 2006 4th edition.It says To give protect, to cover over, shield, suppress the defect, set the affairs right. Ghafar al-Mataa means He put the goods in the bag and covered and protected them. Mighafar is a shield and helmet. Ghafr means covering with that which protects a thing from dirt. Ghafour, name of God The Protector. Page 15-16, Exposition of the Quran, Mafhum Al-Quran by G.A. Parwez. 1990. Page 57-59 Volume 6, Arabic-English Lexicon by Edward William Lane, based on Taj-Ul-Roos, 2003 2nd reprint.
Where is the word "zanoob" in verse 4116? The word I had translated with harmful things is the word which means other than/inferior to/other/ exclusively from/besides/without, and I had translated it because it interacts with Ghafara/protection. You are protected against other things which are harmful to you.
-
Salaam Arnab,
You argue that there is NO affect of a person's deeds on the environment/universe.....
No, I say that their understanding of cause and effect is a mythological interpretation of cause and effect. It does not say there is NO effect, it says THEIR understanding of cause and effect is wrong/mythological/fairytale like. I am here reffering to that their understanding is flawed as they do not grasp the real understanding of cause and effect. It surprises me you misunderstand this, but ok.
You argue that there is NO such thing as salvation....
You also argue that there IS salvation...
No, it says the Qur'an contains a far BETTER system then salvation, that of compensation. So it still rejects salvation as salvation is believed by 90% of the people on earth to be attained through rituals and pleasing God. This has nothing to do with Christianity alone. Almost all religions believe this in their own way. When using the word salvation 90% of the world population will not believe this is done by compensation of deeds, but by belief and worship.
Your so-called these "are English definitions" are useless since it matters what people have in their heads of definitions.
You state that there is NO mercy...
Then you indicate Yes there is mercy....
If there is no concept of mercy in the Quran...compensation cannot be made in a "merciful" way....
There is a big difference between mercy of neglecting sins (as is the definition in all religious understandings) as meant in the first sentence, and something made with ease as how I used the concept here in the second sentence. )
Dear Arnab, I thank you for your comments but I always lay out my understandings in full detail, your examples and suggestions are not needed when people use their brain and read the whole text with footnotes, then it all becomes very clear since I explain what I mean step by step. If you think I should write better or more clearer, then please write your own articles and essays instead of commenting on others about stupid little strawman arguments as this. I do not mean to offend or be ungrateful to your intentions as I do appreciate it, but I think this is a very childish discussion since we are talking here about YOUR opinion that I am not clear enough in your eyes and believe people will misunderstand while till now I never had any real complaints or seen such things as your proclaim, it is even the opposite where I get many mails and calls how easy and clear I write!
Also I believe your argument of saying we must use "English terms" is pointless as 90% of ALL people will use the religious understandings of the terms whatever the dictionaries say. So I refuse to use those terms since they are exactly the ones who create the misunderstandings! Plus, the Arabic definitions do not mean "forgivenes, sin etc", they have a far more interesting and secular meanings as layed out again and again.
-
Interesting thread. I think the article lays out the authors' reasoning and premises as well as can be expected to an audience thinking in depth. I can also see Arnab's points, and her suggestions might be used in a summarised/condensed version of the article if and when it's updated. Peace.
-
Salaam Arnab,
Your so-called these "are English definitions" are useless since it matters what people have in their heads of definitions.
It seems that you are not going to give up your pre-concieved notions of ASSUMING what people think before asking them and you seem to completely disregard that the majority of English speakers do not see it this way. brickwall
Dear Arnab, I thank you for your comments but I always lay out my understandings in full detail, your examples and suggestions are not needed when people use their brain and read the whole text with footnotes, then it all becomes very clear since I explain what I mean step by step. If you think I should write better or more clearer, then please write your own articles and essays instead of commenting on others about stupid little strawman arguments as this.
I do not mean to offend or be ungrateful to your intentions as I do appreciate it, but I think this is a very childish discussion since we are talking here about YOUR opinion that I am not clear enough in your eyes and believe people will misunderstandWow, you claim you don't want to offend me or seem ungrateful but at the same time you call me childish and stupid and imply that I don't use my brain. Then that comment of being grateful and not wanting to offend is lie wrapped in insults.
Why is it you always result to name calling? I've noticed you do that in other posts. And up until now I have not commented on your calling me personally names in other posts. But I have to say that this behaviour is not helpful.
Especially when people are being respectful to you.
This is not behavior that the Quran teaches us, thats for sure.while till now I never had any real complaints or seen such things as your proclaim, it is even the opposite where I get many mails and calls how easy and clear I write!
All I am seeing is EGO giveup
Salam,
Arnab -
Salam Arnab,
It seems that you are not going to give up your pre-concieved notions of ASSUMING what people think before asking them and you seem to completely disregard that the majority of English speakers do not see it this way.
This is based on my reasoning of what people think, whether english speakers or not after long studying Theology, religions and asking people so there is no assumption but a conclusion of an observation after researching.
I didnt call you or anybody else any names ever on this forum and you know this, here I was only referring to the arguments not the person. I apologise for sounding exasperated but since I dont see any solid rebutalls except a few points, all I can see is this argument going in circles...
-
Ghafour comes from Mighfar, helmet. Please see the Arabic definitions
Page 405-406 under the root Ghafara. Dictionary of the Holy Qur?an by Abdul Mannar Omar, 2006 4th edition.It says [b, to cover over
So, why do you not use COVER OVER, which means COVER OVER THE SINS, which means "FOEGIVE".
Where is the word "zanoob" in verse 4116?
rotfl
I knew you would say that. 4-116, the word "DOON", which means other than that Sin "to associate with God". In other words, other sins than that sin.
Well if you want a verse that has the word Zanoob, her is it
(
And those who having done something to be ashamed of, or wronged their own souls earnestly bring Allah to mind; and ask for forgiveness for their sins,and who can forgive sins except Allah?,And are never obstinate in persisting knowingly in (the wrong) they have done. (3-135)
-
So, why do you not use COVER OVER, which means COVER OVER THE SINS, which means "FOEGIVE".
Because the covering was meant to protect it against, and the protection is activated by 11114, the compensation. Yeah sure you knew that
-
Peace all
Just wanted to know what you all thought of this verse. The first section of it that is
"Except whom your Lord has mercy upon; and for that he has created them."
What other meanings could be ascribed to the use of the word Rahm in this verse?Peace,
Respectfully.God knows best.
I would say that God has created us to worship Him and that He is THe Most Merciful and also that He is TRULY The Most Merciful and shows us every single day just how Merciful He is He is giving us so much every single second and yet most people won't be thankful.That's why we must be grateful to God and glorify Him all the time.
Glory be to our God.Peace.
-
Salam. This verse "Except whom your Lord has mercy upon; and for that he has created them." relates to many statements made by Allah. The first implication is that this relates to the creation event. Usually the use of the term "except" indicates there is a prior statement of a "general rule" An examination of Hud at 11118 shows the following "And if your Lord had pleased, He would have made people a single nation. And they cease not to differ" My Lord could have if he wished, made all of us a single nation, a nation of Muslims, however, this would not have prevented people from differing.
Here is where the exception comes into play, the exception is those upon whom my Lord has mercy, and he has created them not to differ, this is his mercy.
These verses describe a hypothetical situation to assist us in understanding our Lord's actions and mercy. Let us suppose we ask our Lord "Oh Lord why did you go through all this, for if you wished you could have made us all Muslims at birth" Our Lord's answer is even if he had made all of us Muslims at birth we would still differ. An examination of the Muslim community shows this statement to be correct.
There is a mercy in the exception, our Lord is teaching us that when he has mercy on us we will cease differing. Inshallah Muslims will cease differing because they seek our Lord's mercy.